Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Reason why state is in ‘businesses’

Letter by Thomas Heavey Sr., Tacoma on Oct. 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm with 9 Comments »
October 6, 2010 2:18 pm

Should the state get out of the workers’ compensation business and out of the liquor business? Initiative proponents are arguing the private sector should be offering these services and the state should not be involved.

This argument raises the question as to why the state got into these “businesses” in the first place.

Simply, the state is in these businesses because in years past business failed at providing these services in a reasonable manner. The state is involved in workers’ compensation because, left to their own devices, employers have abandoned injured workers. The state is involved in the liquor business because, left to their own devices, private retailers sold liquor to anyone whose photo ID consisted of a dead president.

The private interests funding these initiatives are hoping we will not remember the days when an injured worker was simply fired because he couldn’t show up for work. They are hoping we will not remember the days when a teenager only needed cash to buy liquor from the retailer on the corner.

The state is involved in these “businesses” because business failed to do business in a businesslike manner. Look at who is behind these initiatives, who is funding the fancy ads. It is private interests whose sole interest is making a larger profit off of you and me.

Leave a comment Comments → 9
  1. BlaineCGarver says:

    Holy Cow….What you seemingly desire is a Soviet-Style state ownership of all business. And, it worked so WELL for the USSR.

  2. jandkgibbs says:

    Mr. Haevey state, “The private interests funding these initiatives are hoping we will not remember the days when an injured worker was simply fired because he couldn’t show up for work”.

    I would ask Mr. Haevey to take a look at the PDC to see who funds the defense of these Ininiatives. The trial lawyers and unions that want to maintain the status quo. All but 4 state privatize workers comp insurance. Works great there. The state run program is a cash cow for the trial lawyers and the unions have learned how to skew the game in their favor. The loser in the present system is the tax payers not the workers.

    Also look at who funds the ininative to privatize liquior sales. State worker unions that don’t want to give up any of their rice bowl. Again the taxpayers and consumers loose when the state runs a bussiness.

  3. jiminycricket says:

    right on, Tom!

  4. iamjimbo says:

    Soviet???
    More like Venezuelan Hugo Chavez… you know, Harry Belefonte and Jimmy Carter’s favorite commie… weird.

  5. Valid points Thomas, great letter.

  6. Murigen says:

    I will not be voting to privatize workers comp. The system we have may not be perfect but I trust the private insurance companies less then I trust the government.

    As for privatizing liquor…with the new requirements to card everyone who buys liquor every where there shouldn’t be any problem with kids getting a bottle. The state can have a great time with their stings to catch businesses that aren’t carding.

  7. Sumner401 says:

    Good letter Tom!

  8. Nope- I will be voting FOR I-1100. Yee ha.

  9. I don’t like the Liquor Control Board, and it isn’t just because of the way liquor stores are managed. They can be pretty uncooperative towards community members trying to hold events; in my experience being obstructionist for no apparent reason other than the personal opinions of specific LCB individuals.

    I also kind of wish it was easier to get liquor – being open on Sundays was a step in the right direction. But the LCB exercises a lot of control over products available in Washington as well – some would say somewhat overbearingly.

    For these reasons, I was at first encouraged by the news of these initiatives. However, there appear to be enough flaws that would cause significant problems, not the least of which being the damage to the state in a fragile budget condition, to make this a bad deal.

    So, sorry Costco, I’m not going to vote for you on this one.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0